Subject: Re: [boost] The future and present of Boost
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-24 16:43:44
Mike Dev wrote:
> > We can switch to std::function unconditionally, but only if we drop
> > C++03 (for some definition of C++03 because only the latest and greatest
> > MSVC is ~fully C++11 compliant.)
> That's my point: I don't want boost libraries to invest any more effort in
> maintaining c++03 support (I think I made that clear in the last ml-thread
> about this 2-3 month ago).
It's clear to all that everyone is held back by the inability to use C++11
But we can't just stop investing effort in C++03 maintenance. We have to
officially drop C++03 at the Boost level, meaning, refuse to compile Boost
with C++03 at all, or make it difficult, or at least make it choose an
intelligent default that is never C++03.
Otherwise it's easy for our (g++ 5 and clang) users to end up with Boost
libraries compiled with C++03.
(Of course this just kicks the can a bit further down the road - we'll then
need to pick between 11 and 14 as a default for g++ 5 and clang...)
> Btw.: Feature/library wise, I believe the only c++11 thing missing from
> MSVC2015 is full constexpr support and expressions sfinae and even
> MSVC2013 provides most of the library and language bits.
The point is that "C++11" is not useful as a requirement when it comes to
MSVC, we need to pick a specific minimum version. 2013 is a good
approximation of "C++11", I suppose.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk